Which would you rather be taught in schools ?

Post Reply New Topic

If one of these two principles had to be taught in schools, which would you rather it be ?

Neither, I would rather that science was taught in a science class.

Science should explore and debate ALL possibilities for how we came to be here.

The odds of macro evolution being true is astronomically large, and yet, they won't even discuss the idea of humanity being transplanted here or the deliberate seeding of life by another life form...which is a whole lot more probable when you consider the odds against life just happening spontaneously on its own.

When I was in school about 20 years ago, I remember being taught that the Earth started out as a big ball of molten rock, but no one bothered explaining where they got that idea. The teachers would read from the books instead of using their own words to help anyone understand what we were being exposed to, almost like they were afraid of losing their jobs over the slightest deviance from the text.

In short, I think the only kind of science taught in schools should be what conforms to the main parameters of that term: observation in nature, and laboratory testing to verify hypotheses. Throw out unproven junk like the geologic column, transitional forms, and charts that show different "stages of evolution" all having human feet.

I've heard from many people that the word "evolution" actually has many different meanings, divided as follows:

Cosmic (the origins of time, space, and matter)
Chemical (how hydrogen gave birth to other elements like helium)
Stellar (how planets and stars came into existence)
Organic (the origin of life itself)
Macro (molecules to man, i.e. "the goo to you via the zoo")
Micro (small variations within set structures)

When most use the term "evolution", they're usually referring to Macro, since that's what a lot of universities and such champion (to say nothing of the media). The only visually conclusive evidence actually points to Micro, and mutations don't add existing information, which would be needed for anything to change very far from its original state.

A common example is bacteria, where one variant becomes resistant to different medicines, but most ignore the obvious conclusion: they don't change into anything beyond other bacteria. Nothing visible in nature supports the "millions of years" concept, not even the fossil record.

Neither.

Practical (Physical) Science should be taught only insofar as it can be demonstrated.

Theoretical Science should be taught only after a factual mathematical basis has been firmly established.

Religious indoctrination should be left in the wilderness to wither away.

At school, I was taught ID three times:

1) GCSE science (age 15)- as a way of illustrating what makes something a scientific theory. ID didn't qualify.
2) GCSE RE (age 15)- the course was a study of what Christians believe. We did the teleological argument and ID was briefly covered. Awareness that many Christians do not believe in ID was required for a good grade.
3) AS Philosophy (age 17)- a more in depth look at teleology; we looked at Beehee and irreducible complexity. The ability to critique this concept was necessary to gain a good grade, and we studied Hume and Russell and Moore so we were well prepared. We saw that Beehee's example- the flagellum- wasn't actually irreducibly complex.

Teaching ID is fine- just teach it in the correct context!

I vote for the ID (i didn't but I have changed my mind). ID should be taught in schools so that children understand it for what it is, an attempt to subvert real scientific endeavour by people who are so delusional regarding their religious beliefs that they cannot abide the results the scientific method has produced. It should be held up to the same extra-ordinary scrutiny of a scientific theory, that way no kid should ever be left in any doubt that ID is simply an elaborate thought bubble with no supporting evidence.